Spanish Journal of Psychology (2014), 17, e77, 1–7.

© Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid

doi:10.1017/sjp.2014.83

Tower of London: Planning Development in Children

from 6 to 13 Years of Age

Irene Injoque-Ricle, Juan Pablo Barreyro, Alejandra Calero and Débora Inés Burin

Universidad de Buenos Aires (Argentina)

Abstract.  Executive Function is a multidimensional construct that includes a wide range of cognitive abilities that allow
solving goal-directed behaviors efficiently. Its development begins in early childhood and continues through adoles-
cence. A key aspect of Executive Function is planning, defined as the capacity to generate and organize the necessary
step sequence to carry out a goal-directed behavior. The aim of this study was to assess the development of planning in
children. The Tower of London task was used in 270 children aged 6, 8, 11, and 13 years. The results showed that the time
required to generate and organize the plan to solve a goal-directed problem increases as the difficulty of the problem
increases, and that older children need less time to solve problems with a certain level of difficulty than younger children
F(15, 1330) = 8.787; MSE = 1.441; p < .01; η2 =.090. These results are in line with the findings that planning develops
through childhood and even during the first years of adolescence.

Received 17 June 2013; Revised 18 January 2014; Accepted 22 April 2014

Keywords: executive function, planning, tower of London, children, development.

Executive Function (EF) is a multidimensional con-
struct that includes a wide range of cognitive abilities
that allow solving goal-directed behaviors efficiently
(Lezak, 1995; Shallice, 1990; Stuss, 1992). EF involves
identifying the problem, anticipating the necessary
steps to solve it, generating a plan, organizing time
and space, monitoring the plan and recalling the
already accomplished steps, and showing flexibility
in case there is a change in the plan. Different authors
agree that EF is composed of three separated but yet
integrated components: attentional control (selective
and sustained attention), cognitive flexibility (working
memory, attentional shifting and self-monitoring), and
the establishment of goals (initiation, planning, problem
solving, and strategic behavior) (Bull, Espy, & Senn,
2004; Lezak, 1995; Luria, 1973; Miyake et al., 2000;
Neisser, 1967; Shallice, 1990; Soprano, 2003; Stuss, 1992;
Walsh, 1978).
The development of EF begins during early child-
hood and continues through adolescence. The ability
to plan with anticipation, to learn about the contin-
gencies between benefits and costs of decision-making
tasks, and to control and reduce impulsive behaviors
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Irene
Injoque-Ricle. Instituto de Investigaciones. Facultad de Psicología.
Universidad de Buenos Aires. Av. Independencia 3056, 3° piso.
(C1425AAM). Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires (Argentina).
Phone: +54–1149575886.
E-mail: iinjoque@psi.uba.ar
This research was supported by the Consejo Nacional de
Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET; Res. N° 258/06
and Res. N° 3100/08) and by the Secretaría de Ciencia y Técnica,
Universidad de Buenos Aires (SECyT; UBACyT P016).
continues growing through adolescence and even
through the first years of adulthood (Steinberg, 2007).
Physiological evidence shows that the neuroanatomic
regions that support EF are located in the prefrontal
cortex (Boghi et al., 2006; Newman, Carpenter, Varma,
& Just, 2003; Stuss & Alexander, 2007), and that the
neural fibers are myelinated and the frontal structure
matures during childhood and adolescence (Fuster,
2002). This maturation process is correlated with the
gradual acquisition of the abilities involved in EF, since
the transmission of neural information becomes faster
with the increase in myelin in the axons (Fuster, 2002).
A key aspect of EF is planning, which is defined as
the capacity to generate and organize the necessary
step sequence to carry out goal-directed behaviors
(Lezak, 1995; Soprano, 2003). Traditional planning tasks,
such as mazes and tower tests -as Tower of Hanoi or
Tower of London- (Bull, Espy, & Wiebe, 2008; Lezak,
1995) involve accomplishing a goal following specific
rules, without a predetermined path, and within a
limited period of time (Lezak, 1995; Shallice, 1990;
Willcutt, Doyle, Nigg, Faraone, & Pennington, 2005).
Other Executive Functions, such as inhibition, cogni-
tive flexibility, and working memory, are also involved
in these tasks because to be able to solve them effi-
ciently it is necessary to analyze possible alternatives,
to choose the most adequate and inhibit the others,
and to be able to recall the generated plan (Bull et al.,
2004).
The Tower of London is a planning and problem-
solving task that requires a set of processes such as task
organization, plan initiation, ability to retain the plan
in the memory during its realization, ability to inhibit

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Library African Studies Centre, on 30 Nov 2021 at 13:39:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2014.83
 2  I. Injoque-Ricle et al.
possible distracters, and the flexibility to change the
strategy when necessary. The Tower of London task is
a modification made by Shallice (1982) to the Tower of
Hanoi task (Klahr, 1978; Simon, 1975). In the Tower of
London task, participants are presented with two iden-
tical tower structures, one for the examinee and the
other for the examiner, with three balls of different
colors (red, blue, and yellow) and three vertical rods of
different height (one in which three balls can be placed,
one in which two balls can be placed, and one in which
only one ball can be placed). From an initial model pre-
sented (e.g. the blue ball on the short rod, the yellow
one on the long rod, and the red ball on top of the
yellow one), the examinee must try to match the target
configuration presented on the examiner tower struc-
ture (by placing for example the yellow ball on the
short rod, the blue ball on the medium-length rod and
the red ball on the long rod and then following the
instructions explained by the examiner, i.e. that only
one ball can be moved at a time and that the problem
presented has to be solved in a certain number of
moves -in our example, 4-, and within a certain amount
of time. To have a good performance in the Tower of
London task, the participant has to have efficient plan-
ning abilities to solve the problem in the minimum
number of moves possible, within a limited period of
time.
Two planning measures can be obtained from this
task: the score and the planning time. The score is the
number of solved problems, and is the most used plan-
ning measure. The planning time is the time between
the presentation of the target model and the first move,
and is also called latency time. This is the period of
time were an initial plan to solve the problem is gener-
ated. Problems that require more movements to be
solved should need a longer planning time than prob-
lems of fewer movements. Another measure that can
be obtained from this task is the level achieved in the
task, where each level represents the minimum number
of moves necessary to solve the items included in it,
although is not frequently used. A less used measure is
the total number of moves made on the tasks. This
measure doesn´t discriminate the level of difficulty of
the problem solved, it only sums the amount of move-
ments made by the children. Other time measures that
can be obtained from this instrument are the execution
time, which is the time between the first movement
and the last one, and the total time, that is the planning
time plus the execution time. This last time measure is
used to determine whether the participant has solved
the problem within the time limit given by the exam-
iner, and is one of the elements that is taken into con-
sideration to determine if the problem is correctly
solved. Execution time can give information about
subject variables such as distractibility or even lack of
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Library African Studies Centre, on 30 Nov 2021 at 13:39:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2014.83
interest in solving the task, but not about the ability to
generate and organize the necessary step sequence to
solve the problem.
Regarding the number of problems solved as a
planning measure, different works have demonstrated
that the efficiency in the performance of the Tower of
London task progressively increases between 3 and
14 years of age, where it reaches that of an adult
(Krikorian, Bartok, & Gay, 1994b; Lipina, Martelli,
Vuelta, Injoque Ricle, & Colombo, 2004; Mahone et al.,
2002; Malloy-Diniz et al., 2008). Fewer studies have
been carried out regarding planning or latency time as
a planning measure, especially in normal samples. In a
study with young adults between 18 and 25 years old,
Phillips, Wynn, Gilhooly, Della Sala, and Logie (1999)
found that planning time increases along with the
number of moves necessary to solve the problem.
On the other hand, Huizinga, Dolan, and van der
Molen (2006) worked with groups of 7, 11, 15, and 21
years old and found that planning time decreases
between 7 and 15 years of age, and that the planning
time of the 15-year-old participants was not signifi-
cantly different from that of the 21-year-old ones. The
sum of the number of moves to solution of all the prob-
lems of the task is rarely used as planning measure.
In a developmental study of planning using Tower of
Hanoi in children from 6 to 12 years old, Díaz et al.
(2012) concluded that planning progressively improves
with age and found three different moments: the per-
formance of the first grade children was significantly
lower than the performance of the rest of the sample,
the performance of the children from second to fourth
grade was similar, with no significant differences, and
the performance of the children from fifth and sixth
grade was significantly higher than that of the rest of
the sample, with no significant differences between
each other.
Knowing the normal development of EF has a great
importance since its normal functioning is crucial to
the performance of a great deal of every-day tasks,
including some that are important to accomplish good
academic achievements. In addition, its functioning is
impaired in different developmental disorders such
as ADHD (Happé, Booth, Charlton, & Hughes, 2006;
Shimoni, Engel-Yeger, & Tirosh, 2012; Willcutt et al.,
2005) or autism (Gilbert, Bird, Brindley, Frith, &
Burgess, 2008; Happé et al., 2006; Hill, 2004; Robinson,
Goddard, Dritschel, Wisley, & Howlin, 2009). Therefore,
having information about the normal development of
the EF allows professionals to detect its impairment.
The aim of this study was to assess the normal devel-
opment of planning in children, measured in terms
of planning time in the Tower of London task, and to
determine if planning time is a valid measure of plan-
ning. We evaluated if planning time increases along

with the difficulty of the problems, and if within a
same level of difficulty, it decreases as the age of the
children increases.
Method
Participants
A total of 270 children participated in the study. They
belonged to four age groups: 6- (n = 70), 8- (n = 70), 11-
(n = 70), and 13 years old (n = 60). Descriptive statistics
and distribution of gender by group are shown in
Table 1. The 6- (mean age in months = 78.90, SD = 3.30),
8- (mean age in months = 101.17, SD = 3.35), and
11-year-old groups (mean age in months = 137.95,
SD = 2.79) attended two middle-class public elementary-
level schools in the city of Buenos Aires, whereas the
13-year-old group (mean age in months = 161.62,
SD = 3.79) attended a middle-class public high school
in Buenos Aires City. The participants represent a sam-
ple of convenience. All children participated with the
informed consent of their parents, after attending an
informative meeting about the study. Children with diag-
nosed psychiatric or neurological condition, language or
hearing impairment, or with a history of academic failure
(repeating course) were excluded from the study. This
information was provided by the school registers.
Instruments
Tower of London (TOL; Injoque-Ricle & Burin, 2008,
2011; Shallice, 1982). The TOL consists of two wooden
tower structures with a 26 x 4.5 x 3.5 cm base, three 0.8
diameters vertical rods of different length (4.5, 9, and
15 cm), and three 5 cm diameter balls (a red, a yellow
and a blue one). The task has seven levels of increasing
difficulty, with three problems each. Difficulty of the
problems was tested on a previous study. Increase in
the difficulty of the problems along with the increase
in movements -inter-level difficulty-, and that all prob-
lems of the same level had similar level of difficulty
-intra-level difficulty- was verified (see Injoque-Ricle &
Burin, 2008). To move to the next level, which involves
problems with one more move than the previous one,
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Gender Distribution by Age Group
Age
6 8
Gender n %
Female 33 47.10
Male 37 52.90
Total 70 100
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Library African Studies Centre, on 30 Nov 2021 at 13:39:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2014.83
Planning Development in Children  3
the participants have to solve at least two of the three
problems of that level efficiently. A problem is consid-
ered solved when the final configuration -shown in the
examiner’s tower structure- is reached, within the cer-
tain number of moves and within a certain period of
time: 15 seconds for levels 1 and 2, 30 seconds for levels
3 and 4, 45 seconds for levels 5 and 6, and 60 seconds
for level 7 (see Injoque-Ricle & Burin, 2008 for a
detailed explanation of how this time limits were esti-
mated). A score is given for each problem solved cor-
rectly. One point is given when a problem is solved
correctly in the first level; two points are given to cor-
rect solved problems in the second level, and so on for
the next five levels. Finally, all partial scores are added,
thus obtaining a total task score. A schematic represen-
tation of the solution of one of the problems can be
found on Injoque-Ricle and Burin (2008).
Regarding psychometric properties, within the adap-
tation process (Injoque-Ricle & Burin, 2008, 2011) accept-
able reliability indexes were found (α = .73) and evidence
of convergent and discriminant validity were found.
Procedure
Each child was tested in a quiet room inside the school
during a 30-minute session.
Data analysis
To determine whether there were statistical differences
between the age groups regarding total score and level,
two one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) and a
Bonferroni post hoc analysis for multiple group com-
parison were conducted. Planning times -the time
between the presentation of the target model and the
first move- were compared by a repeated measures
ANOVA. To compare the planning times of the correct
and incorrect problems in each level, a 6 x 2 (level x
correct/incorrect) repeated measures ANOVA was
conducted. To compare the planning times of the cor-
rect problems within each level across all age groups
and across all levels within one age group, a second
repeated measures ANOVA was conducted. Finally,
a 6 x 4 x 2 (the planning times of the correct problems
11 13
n % n % n %
39 55.70 50 71.40 35 58.30
31 44.30 20 28.60 25 41.70
70 100 70 100 60 100
 4  I. Injoque-Ricle et al.

x age x gender) repeated measures ANOVA was con-
ducted to establish differences in planning time of cor-
rect problems between boys and girls within each age
group. All analyses were conducted using the statis-
tical software SPSS.21.
Results
Total TOL score, level, planning time of the correct
problems by level, and planning time for the incorrect
levels were analyzed. Since none of the 6-year-old chil-
dren were able to do any of the seventh level problems,
this level was excluded from the analysis, although
descriptive statistics (shown on Table 2) are presented
for the complete task for the variables “score” and
“level”. Errors on level one were due to extra move-
ments -children made a first erroneous movement and
corrected it immediately-.
Differences in total scores among all ages were found
F(3, 266) = 38.870; MSE = 125.915; p < .01; η2 = .305. Post
hoc analysis showed significant differences between
all groups (6–8: p = .01; 8–11: p = .01; 11–13: p < .01).
Regarding the level reached in the different age groups,
the one-way ANOVA showed significant differences
F(3, 266) = 22.911; MSE = 1.408; p < .01; η2 = .205. Post
hoc analysis showed differences only between the
6-year-old and the 8-year-old groups (p = .02).
The analysis of the planning time of correct prob-
lems vs. that of the incorrect problems showed a signif-
icant interaction effect with the level F(5, 1345) = 23.477;
MSE = 6.460; p < .01; η2 = .080. The difference between
the planning time of correct and incorrect problems
was significant in levels 1 (p < .01), 2 (p < .01), 3 (p < .01),
and 5 (p < .01) (see Figure 1).
Because significant differences between the planning
times of correct and incorrect problems were found in
most levels, the following analyses were conducted
using only the planning time of correct problems (from
now on referred simply as “planning time”). The first
repeated measures ANOVA showed an interaction effect
between level*age F(15, 1330) = 8.787; MSE = 1.441;
p < .01; η2 =.090. For each age group, we found that the
planning time increased along with the level, starting
at level 2. Level 1 had in all cases higher planning time
than level two, although no significant differences
were found. Within the 6-year-old group, the increase
in planning time was significant between levels 2 and
3 (p < .01), and between levels 5 and 6 (p < .01). Within
the 8-year-old group, the planning time increased
significantly between levels 2 and 3 (p < .01), and
decreased between levels 4 and 5, although not signifi-
cantly. Within the 11-year-old group, the planning time
increased significantly between levels 2 and 3 (p < .01),
4 and 5 (p < .01), and 5 and 6 (p < .05), and decreased
not significantly between levels 3 and 4. Finally, within
the 13-year-old group, the planning time increased sig-
nificantly between levels 2 and 3 (p < .01), and 4 and 5
(p < .01) (Figure 2).
When the planning times of a same level were com-
pared along the four age groups, the analysis showed
for level 1 that it decreased significantly and progres-
sively as the age increased (p < .01). The same was
found in level 2 (6–8 and 8–11: p < .01; 11–13: p < .05).

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of the Variables for Each Group Age

6 (n = 70) 8 (n = 70) 11 (n = 70) 13 (n = 60)

Variable  Min. Max. M SE Min. Max. M SE Min. Max. M SE Min. Max. M SE

Total scorea 2.00 48.00 18.60 9.99 10.00 50.00 24.51 10.50 6.00 56.00 30.41 11.61 11.00 71.00 39.00 12.83
Levela 1.00 6.00 3.60 1.20 3.00 7.00 4.20 1.12 2.00 7.00 4.73 1.26 3.00 7.00 5.23 1.16
cPT level 1 1.52 8.29 3.58 1.34 1.42 6.60 3.06 1.15 1.27 5.98 2.52 0.83 1.08 3.76 2.11 0.60
iPT level 1 1.56 14.81 6.11 1.61 1.55 14.91 4.32 1.40 1.14 6.09 3.32 0.56 4.55 4.55 4.55 0.00
cPT level 2 0.89 11.11 3.39 1.52 1.18 6.83 2.83 1.05 1.01 5.73 2.40 1.02 1.29 3.77 2.09 0.59
iPT level 2 1.20 12.53 5.15 2.08 1.67 15.94 4.03 1.60 1.24 3.78 1.98 0.30 1.32 2.90 1.95 0.16
cPT level 3 1.95 10.30 4.27 1.74 1.74 10.17 4.06 2.22 1.22 8.63 3.59 1.66 1.47 5.99 2.79 0.85
iPT level 3 1.48 41.36 7.81 7.36 1.14 30.95 6.16 5.44 1.44 41.06 6.52 5.94 1.09 11.37 3.75 1.53
cPT level 4 1.20 11.24 4.61 1.43 1.71 12.94 4.19 1.47 0.95 9.72 3.33 1.48 1.16 6.57 2.80 0.99
iPT level 4 0.00 20.67 5.40 3.17 1.04 12.52 3.89 1.73 0.98 12.40 3.25 1.89 1.73 5.31 3.05 0.72
cPT level 5 2.29 8.08 4.89 0.91 2.26 14.64 4.16 1.45 1.53 11.83 4.07 1.74 1.83 7.50 3.83 1.26
iPT level 5 2.17 14.89 6.07 2.02 2.34 10.44 4.21 1.13 1.47 35.24 5.22 4.18 1.42 8.02 3.69 1.08
cPT level 6 4.68 10.30 7.05 0.49 2.14 11.87 4.32 1.00 1.34 18.06 4.46 1.81 1.52 6.65 4.08 0.87
iPT level 6 1.70 9.15 3.81 0.97 1.74 18.47 4.18 2.27 1.57 20.38 4.16 3.05 1.55 61.44 6.29 8.87

Note: cPT: Correct problems planning time in seconds ; iPC: Incorrect problems planning time in seconds; a: “Total score” and
“Level” variables were estimated including all seven levels of the task, even when the data analysis were conducted with the
first six levels.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Library African Studies Centre, on 30 Nov 2021 at 13:39:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2014.83

Figure 1. Planning times of correct and incorrect problem means for each TOL level.
In level 3, the time also decreased progressively
between the age groups, but only significantly between
the 8-year-old and the 11-year-old groups (p < .05) and
between the 11-year-old and the 13-year-old groups
(p < .01). In level 4 results showed the same pattern as
in levels 1 and 2 (6–8: p < .05; 8–11 and 11–13: p < .01).
Regarding level 5, although the planning time decreased
between all age groups, it was significant only between
the 6-year-old and the 8-year-old groups (p < .01).
Finally, in level 6 the planning time decreased signif-
icantly between the 6-year-old and the 8-year-old
groups (p < .01), and between the 8-year-old and the
11-year-old groups (p < .05), and increased between the
11-year-old and the 13-year-old groups, although not
significantly (Figure 2).
No interaction was found between level and gen-
der F(5, 1310) = 1.953; MSE = 1.431; p = .083; η2 = .007
and among level, gender and age F(15, 1310) = 1.355;
MSE = 1.431; p = .162; η2 = .015.
Discussion
Planning is a key aspect of EF. Allows an individual
to generate and organize the step sequence involved in
Figure 2. Mean planning times of correct problems on
different levels by age group.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Library African Studies Centre, on 30 Nov 2021 at 13:39:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2014.83
Planning Development in Children  5
goal-directed behaviors. This ability is essential in
every-day life, and in childhood its related to academic
achievement, since its involved in arithmetic problem
solving and in the correct execution of all assignments
that implies accomplishing a goal and a following a
series of steps. Several studies have investigated the
impairment of planning and other EF during child-
hood in developmental disorders (Gilbert et al., 2008;
Happé et al., 2006; Hill, 2004; Robinson et al., 2009;
Shimoni et al., 2012; Willcutt et al., 2005), but a few
have studied the normal development of these func-
tions. That is why the main aim of this study was to
assess the development of planning in children. Also,
another aim was to determine if planning or latency
time is a valid measure of planning. For this purpose,
the Tower of London task was used in 270 children
divided in four age groups (6, 8, 11, and 13 years old).
The measure of planning used was the time between
the presentation of the target and the first move done
by the participant, but also the total score and the level
reached.
An initial approach to the data was through the per-
formance of the task, measured as the total score
achieved. The analysis showed that the performance
improved with age. These findings are in the same line
of those of Krikorian et al. (1994), Lipina et al. (2004),
Malloy-Diniz (2008), and Steinberg (2002), who found
a progressive improvement in the scores in the Tower
of London between 3 and 14 years of age. Regarding
the maximum number of moves reached, the 6-year-old
group differentiated from the rest of the groups, reach-
ing the maximum possible level of the task. Although
there were no differences in the maximum number of
moves that the three older groups could do, there were
differences regarding the efficiency with which they
reach it. That is shown by the differences found in the
performance of each group.
The analysis made with planning time first showed
that there were differences between the planning time
 6  I. Injoque-Ricle et al.
of the correct problems and the one of the incorrect
problems in all levels except levels 4 and 6. A short
planning time could represent a rapid plan elaboration
or an impulsive behavior to start solving the task with-
out having a plan of action. When solving a TOL prob-
lem, an impulsive behavior generally implies extra
movements, since it becomes a trial and error problem
solution, and this result in an incorrect problem.
Because of this, the next analyses were conducted
using the correct problems. To determine whether the
planning time increases along with the complexity of
the task, the planning time of all levels were compared
within each group. Results showed that the planning
time increases progressively from level two, and that
this increase was significant in half of the cases. When
the increase was not significant, it could indicate that
although the problems of consecutive levels of diffi-
culty in terms of number of minimum moves required
to solve the problem, the time needed to generate and
organize the sequence of steps for its resolution is the
same. An example of this can be between levels 3 and 4
in the 6-, 8-, or 11-years old groups. The same conclu-
sion can be drawn from the fact that in some cases
the planning time of a lower difficulty level was non-
significantly higher than the planning time of a higher
difficulty level, as levels 4 and 5 in the 8-year-old group
or levels 3 and 4 in the 11-year-old group. It can thus
be concluded that the amount of time required to gen-
erate and organize the plan increases along with the
difficulty of the problems. This follows the results
found by Phillips et al. (1999). The last analysis made
with the planning time of the correct problems
explored if the planning time of a level decreased along
with the increase in the age. In levels 1, 2, and 4, the
results showed that planning time decreased progres-
sively and significantly across all groups. In level 3,
although the time decreased from the 6-year-old to the
8-year-old groups, the difference was not significant.
In level 5, the decrease was significant only between
the 6-year-old and the 8-year-old groups. Finally, in
level 6, a significant decrease was found between the
6-year-old and the 8-year-old groups and between the
11-year-old and the 13-year-old groups. In this level,
an increase in the planning time between the 8-year-
old and the 11-year-old groups was found, although it
was non-significant. These results could indicate that
although the decrease in the planning time is not
always significant, when the children are older they
need less time to generate and organize the necessary
step sequence to solve the same problems than when
they are younger. These results also agree with those
found by Huizinga et al. (2006), who, even if they did
not carry out a detailed analysis by levels, reported a
decrease in planning time between the ages of 7 and 15,
and a lack of differences between the ages of 15 and 21.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Library African Studies Centre, on 30 Nov 2021 at 13:39:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2014.83
The findings of both analyses of the planning times
of the correct problems are congruent between each
other, and indicate that the time required to generate
and organize the step sequence to carry out a goal-
directed problem is longer as the difficulty of the level
increases, and that older children need less time to
solve problems with a certain level of difficulty than
younger children. This demonstrates the evolutional
development of planning through childhood and the
first years of adolescence.
Finally, the analysis of the planning time, along
with the analysis of the total scores, show evidence in
favor of construct validity of the Tower of London
task, and both measures demonstrated to be valid
planning measures.
This study provides information about the validity
of two measures of the Tower of London task, along
with information about the normal development of
planning ability in children, which is important for
educational and psychological professionals to early
identify impairments in this EF aspect.
References
Boghi A., Rasetti R., Avidano F., Manzone C., Orsi L.,
D'Agata F., …, Mortara P. (2006). The effect of gender on
planning: An fMRI study using the Tower of London task.
Neuroimage, 33, 999–1010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
neuroimage.2006.07.022
Bull R., Espy K. A., & Senn T. E. (2004). A comparison of
performance on the Towers of London and Hanoi in young
children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45,
743–754. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00268.x
Bull R., Espy K. A., & Wiebe S. A. (2008). Short-term memory,
working memory, and executive functioning in preschoolers:
Longitudinal predictors of mathematical achievement at
age 7 years. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33, 205–228.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87565640801982312
Díaz A., Martín R., Jiménez J. E., García E., Hernández S.,
& Rodríguez C. (2012). Torre de Hanoi: Datos normativos
y desarrollo evolutivo de la planificación [Tower of Hanoi:
Normative data and planning development]. European
Journal of Education and Psychology, 5, 79–91.
Fuster J. M. (2002). Frontal lobe and cognitive development.
Journal of Neurocytology, 31, 373–385.
Gilbert S. J., Bird G., Brindley R., Frith C. D., & Burgess P. W.
(2008). Atypical recruitment of medial prefrontal cortex
in autism spectrum disorders: An fMRI study of two
executive function tasks. Neuropsychologia, 46, 2281–2291.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.03.025
Happé F., Booth R., Charlton R., & Hughes C. (2006).
Executive function deficits in autism spectrum disorders
and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Examining
profiles across domains and ages. Brain and Cognition, 61,
25–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2006.03.004
Hill E. L. (2004). Evaluating the theory of executive
dysfunction in autism. Developmental Review, 24, 189–233.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2004.01.001

Huizinga M., Dolan C. V., & van der Molen M. W. (2006).
Age-related change in executive function: Developmental
trends and a latent variable analysis. Neuropsychologia, 44,
2017–2036. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
neuropsychologia.2006.01.010
Injoque-Ricle I., & Burin D. I. (2008). Validez y fiabilidad
de la prueba de Torre de Londres para niños: Un estudio
preliminar [Validity and reliability of the Tower of London
task for children: A preliminary study]. Revista Argentina
de Neuropsicología, 11, 21–31.
Injoque-Ricle I., & Burin D. I. (2011). Memoria de Trabajo
y planificación en niños. Validación de la prueba Torre
de Londres [Working memory and planning in children:
Validation of the Tower of London Task]. Neuropsicología
Latinoamericana, 3, 31–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.5579/
rnl.2011.0065
Klahr D. (1978). Goal formation, planning, and learning by
preschool problem solvers or: “My socks are in the dryer”.
In R. Siegler (Ed.), Children’s thinking: What develops?
Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Krikorian R., Bartok J. A., & Gay N. (1994). Tower of London
procedure: A standard method and developmental data.
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 16,
840–850. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01688639408402697
Lezak M. D. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment. New York,
NY: Oxford.
Lipina S. J., Martelli M. I., Vuelta B. L., Injoque Ricle I., &
Colombo J. A. (2004). Pobreza y desempeño ejecutivo en
alumnos preescolares de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires
(República Argentina) [Poverty and excecutive functioning
in preschool children of Buenos Aires City (Argentina)].
Interdisciplinaria, 21, 153–193.
Luria A. R. (1973). The working brain: An introduction to
neuropsychology. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Mahone E. M., Cirino P. T., Cutting L. E., Cerrone P. M.,
Hagelthorn K. M., Hiemenz J. R., …, Dencklaa M. B.
(2002). Validity of the behavior rating inventory of
executive function in children with ADHD and/or
Tourette syndrome. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology,
17, 643–662. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/arclin/17.7.643
Malloy-Diniz L. F., Cardoso-Martins C., Nassif E. P., Levy
A. M., Leite W. B., & Fuentes D. (2008). Planning abilities
of children aged 4 years and 9 months to 8 1/2 years.
Dementia & Neuropsychologia, 2, 26–30.
Miyake A., Friedman N. P., Emerson M. J., Witzki A. H.,
Howerter A., & Wager T. D. (2000). The unity and
diversity of executive functions and their contributions
to complex frontal lobe tasks: A latent variable analysis.
Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49–100. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Library African Studies Centre, on 30 Nov 2021 at 13:39:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2014.83
Planning Development in Children  7
Neisser U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. Nueva York, NY:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Newman S. D., Carpenter P. A., Varma S., & Just M. A.
(2003). Frontal and parietal participation in problem
solving in the Tower of London: fMRI and computational
modeling of planning and high-level perception.
Neuropsychologia, 41, 1668–1682. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0028-3932(03)00091-5
Phillips L. H., Wynn V., Gilhooly K. J., Della Sala S., &
Logie R. H. (1999). The role of memory in the Tower
of London task. Memory, 7, 209–231. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/741944066
Robinson S., Goddard L., Dritschel B., Wisley M., &
Howlin P. (2009). Executive functions in children with
Autism Spectrum Disorders. Brain and Cognition, 71,
362–368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2009.06.007
Shallice T. (1982). Specific impairments of planning.
Philosophical Transcripts of the Royal Society of London, 298,
199–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1982.0082
Shallice T. (1990). From neuropsychology to mental structure.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Shimoni M., Engel-Yeger B., & Tirosh E. (2012).
Executive dysfunctions among boys with Attention
Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): Performance-
based test and parents report. Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 33, 858–865. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ridd.2011.12.014
Simon H. A. (1975). The functional equivalence of problem
solving skills. Cognitive Psychology 7, 268–288. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90012-2
Soprano A. M. (2003). Evaluación de las funciones ejecutivas
en el niño. [Excecutive function assessment in children]
Revista de Neurología, 37, 44–50.
Steinberg L. (2007). Risk tasking in adolescence: New
perspectives from brain and behavioral science. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 55–59.
Stuss D. T. (1992). Biological and physiological
development of executive function. Brain and Cognition,
20, 8–23.
Stuss D. T., & Alexander M. P. (2007). Is there a dysexecutive
syndrome? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
of London, Series B, Biological Sciences, 362, 901–915.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2096
Walsh K. H. (1978). Neuropsychology: A clinical approach.
Edinburgh, UK: Chirchill Livingstone.
Willcutt E. G., Doyle A. E., Nigg J. T., Faraone S. V., &
Pennington B. F. (2005). Validity of the executive function
theory of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder:
A meta-analytic review. Biological psychiatry, 57, 1336–1346.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.02.006